Global Lambda Integrated Facility

Re: [GLIF tech] Why do we need topology exchange?

  • Subject: Re: [GLIF tech] Why do we need topology exchange?
  • From: Victor Reijs <victor.reijs@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:25:10 +0100

Hello Jeroen,

Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
However, at the GLIF meeting I posed that the statement that I've been
working at topology descriptions for over 5 years now, partly because
the GLIF community showed an interest in this.
At the moment GOLEs are still not publishing topologies in a machine
readable format. So there seems to be a disconnect between what the
community says they want to do and what they actually do.

We need to figure out why that is.

A good point. I think there migth be a few reasons:
. there are no automated systems yet that can avail of such a (abstracted) topology, so there is no real need to do (chicken and egg).

. there is no standard way yet how to describe an (abstract) topology?

. what are the minimum parameter one need to be able to make a connection?

. what application uses/need such things?

My drive for this all, is that I hope it will reduce the work of the NOCs (so I not that interested in end/kill application, but I am sure it will emerge). I think inititiatives like IDC/AutoBAHN, cNIS/OGF, pathfinding and Stitching Framework/GIRRA all make sure that standardization is emerging.

Sorry not to be able to gave a very concrete response, but I hope it helps.

All the best,

HEAnet National Networking Conference, 10-12 November 2010
Registration is now open at:

Victor Reijs, Network Development Manager
HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1
Registered in Ireland, no 275301
tel: +353-1-660 9040  fax: +353-1-660 3666